Auto-delete Idea For Reviews that are "Not Useful at All"

I noticed a review today that was written over a year ago and has been rated as being not useful at all. There are more than just this review that I found today. It is possible that reviews like this could be sitting on products with no other reviews, preventing them from being reviewed as free assignments by contributors who would do a much better review.

My idea...

After a year of being voted on, if a review is deemed "not useful at all" it gets auto-deleted. This would not affect the contributors rating because only the last 365 days of activity count anyways. BUT, it would get rid of the "bad apple" reviews and possibly free up assignments. It doesn't benefit eden to have a review that is not useful at all. It also saves times since you won't find yourself reading any reviews of this type. I think it makes eden look better if an even larger majority of their reviews are useful. Seems win win win to me. But that makes me wonder...why don't we already do this?

What do you think? Is this fair? Thoughts?

Answers (public voting - your screen name will appear in the results):

Example of review I am talking about. I am only posting this because I believe this person is no longer at eden.

link

Yeah.... I was actually just reading that one (I saw it on the newsfeed). And my thoughts were pretty much, "Wow. How is this still up?"

I think the idea makes sense, but only if there is a time restraint, as you suggested. This would allow reviewers to edit their writings after getting feedback. Also, it's important that newcomers have the opportunity to see what a "not useful at all" review looks like and read comments posted on it.

Yeah.... I was actually just reading that one (I saw it on the newsfeed). And my thoughts were pretty much, "Wow. How is this still up?"

I think the idea makes sense, but only if there is a time restraint, as you suggested. This
...

Yeah.... I was actually just reading that one (I saw it on the newsfeed). And my thoughts were pretty much, "Wow. How is this still up?"

I think the idea makes sense, but only if there is a time restraint, as you suggested. This would allow reviewers to edit their writings after getting feedback. Also, it's important that newcomers have the opportunity to see what a "not useful at all" review looks like and read comments posted on it.

Very good points!

Yea that is why 1 year is perfect because after 1 year any activity you do, posts, reviews, etc doesn't go into your rating anymore. This makes it fair for the most active most CURRENT members to improve their ratings. They are constantly changing.

That being said, it would also be nice if people who have voted on a review could re-vote if/when the work is edited. This would allow edited reviews the chance to stay up and provide incentive to actually re-do.

That being said, it would also be nice if people who have voted on a review could re-vote if/when the work is edited. This would allow edited reviews the chance to stay up and provide incentive to actually re-do.

Hmmm...never thought of that. I try to not vote on a review if it is an obvious technical issue. I tell them and then return when they have had ample time to change it.

I'm not really a fan of removing reviews. Gary is really good with using common sense and assigning products.

The Froggy review you mentioned has at least 3 reviews on it. I just gave it a quick glance, so there could be a couple more. That's one thing I love about this site: variety of viewpoints. Some people may like things others don't.

I do like the idea of re-voting after an edit, but that could lead-in for someone upping their rating. That kinda leads you to a quality rating vs. contributor rank and is something I don't really want to touch. As it stands now, if someone has an "eh" review, their best bet is to answer any additional questions and then try to do better on their next review, live and learn.

I'm with ScottA and JR. If you believe that you can write a better review than the existing ones, send a message to Gary (whether through the box that pops up when you request something that already has reviews on it or just email) and see where it goes from there.

Hmm, this got a lot more complicated after I voted. Maybe an auto-delete isn't the best option, but if a review isn't useful, and if it's outdated/old then I don't see any harm in taking it down, especially if the author is no longer active and won't be editing the review to improve it.

I checked other because many of us read the reviews but do not comment on their usefulness. I find almost all reviews useful in some way. Sure some are way better - but I don't think there are too many reviews for any one product out there - so I don't see the need.

I find myself looking for reviews by those whose past performance has been useful - but I must say that I've also learned a lot from reviewers that were new to me.

Before public voting, too many people down voted for personal reasons. I think this would be unfair to them.

That is also very true, I was subject to that (but I don't have any reviews of this type). But that is why 1-year mark would be good because it no longer affects them. It could be for only reviews with public voting.

This has nothing to do with me wanting to write a review on something. I could just buy it. It has more to do with image. When I see reviews like that I wonder what new commers think. That's all.

Hmm, this got a lot more complicated after I voted. Maybe an auto-delete isn't the best option, but if a review isn't useful, and if it's outdated/old then I don't see any harm in taking it down, especially if the author is no longer
...

Hmm, this got a lot more complicated after I voted. Maybe an auto-delete isn't the best option, but if a review isn't useful, and if it's outdated/old then I don't see any harm in taking it down, especially if the author is no longer active and won't be editing the review to improve it.

I'm not really a fan of removing reviews. Gary is really good with using common sense and assigning products.

The Froggy review you mentioned has at least 3 reviews on it. I just gave it a quick glance, so there could be a couple more.
...

I'm not really a fan of removing reviews. Gary is really good with using common sense and assigning products.

The Froggy review you mentioned has at least 3 reviews on it. I just gave it a quick glance, so there could be a couple more. That's one thing I love about this site: variety of viewpoints. Some people may like things others don't.

I do like the idea of re-voting after an edit, but that could lead-in for someone upping their rating. That kinda leads you to a quality rating vs. contributor rank and is something I don't really want to touch. As it stands now, if someone has an "eh" review, their best bet is to answer any additional questions and then try to do better on their next review, live and learn.

I appreciate that you are trying to come up with productive ideas here, but there are too many variables involved to automatically un-publish reviews based on ratings.

Also, defective items should not be reviewed. If there is ever a problem with an item you should immediately contact me. A review of a defective item, does not give a fair representation to the overall product line.

Example of review I am talking about. I am only posting this because I believe this person is no longer at eden.

link

I definitely see your point about reviews not being useful and perhaps products benefiting from additional reviews. There is always the ability to get a 2nd verified review on a product and like others have said..if you still think you could do better, you can always send a message to Gary with the request for assignment.

Gary is reasonable and understanding about such things - Aren't you Gary????

My concern for auto-delete is that it takes away the human decision to remove a review and makes it automatic when that might not be the best thing to do.

While I believe the idea does hold merit, I fear there would be too many complications with implementing it. First of all, it isn't fair to the contributor who submitted the review. Eden Fantasys is all about upholding a positive community. However, I'm afraid that this removal of reviews would send a very negative message. By many, it could conceivably be interpreted as "This review wasn't good enough for EF & its customers". This could cause a lot of issues and even rivalries in the community.

We should also consider the fact that some users still "down-rate" others. Perhaps not always on purpose, but I've seen it happen to some useful and extremely useful reviews . This might even become commonality if an automatic removal of unhelpful reviews were put into action. There might be those unhappy that you, or anyone else, contributed to their review getting removed (for instance by giving them a less than useful rating). It's completely possible they might be inclined to then "down-rate" other user's reviews. Unfortunately, this could endanger even the best reviews of being removed, merely due to public opinion or spite. I feel like, overall, this would create more issues for EF than it would resolve.

I applaud you on your effort though to continually make EF a more efficient, informative place to shop.

While I believe the idea does hold merit, I fear there would be too many complications with implementing it. First of all, it isn't fair to the contributor who submitted the review. Eden Fantasys is all about upholding a positive community.
...

While I believe the idea does hold merit, I fear there would be too many complications with implementing it. First of all, it isn't fair to the contributor who submitted the review. Eden Fantasys is all about upholding a positive community. However, I'm afraid that this removal of reviews would send a very negative message. By many, it could conceivably be interpreted as "This review wasn't good enough for EF & its customers". This could cause a lot of issues and even rivalries in the community.

We should also consider the fact that some users still "down-rate" others. Perhaps not always on purpose, but I've seen it happen to some useful and extremely useful reviews . This might even become commonality if an automatic removal of unhelpful reviews were put into action. There might be those unhappy that you, or anyone else, contributed to their review getting removed (for instance by giving them a less than useful rating). It's completely possible they might be inclined to then "down-rate" other user's reviews. Unfortunately, this could endanger even the best reviews of being removed, merely due to public opinion or spite. I feel like, overall, this would create more issues for EF than it would resolve.

I applaud you on your effort though to continually make EF a more efficient, informative place to shop.

Thanks for the recognition as it was just a rough idea to improve an aspect of the community. But not everything can be bettered by fixing since it poses new problems sometimes. Your ideas about this shows that perfectly. I didn't even think of this part

"It's completely possible they might be inclined to then "down-rate" other user's reviews."

Hmm... I voted that it was a good idea, but after reading all the comments down here (which I should have first done), I'm now not too sure. It seems like a good idea, but I see good and bad points to it, and as a few have mentioned, it may be too difficult or cause people to get upset.

Hmmm... Good ideas though Lauren. I'm not usually able to come up with stuff like that.

I agree with deleting reviews that consistently receive "Not useful at all" (maybe over a period of 6-12 months) but believe more that an administrator should be the one to do it, rather than the system automatically deleting. It may well be that the reviewer has edited their review to be more comprehensive and useful, but still has those old Not Useful at All votes there.

I noticed a review today that was written over a year ago and has been rated as being not useful at all. There are more than just this review that I found today. It is possible that reviews like this could be
...

This is just a thought I had...

I noticed a review today that was written over a year ago and has been rated as being not useful at all. There are more than just this review that I found today. It is possible that reviews like this could be sitting on products with no other reviews, preventing them from being reviewed as free assignments by contributors who would do a much better review.

My idea...

After a year of being voted on, if a review is deemed "not useful at all" it gets auto-deleted. This would not affect the contributors rating because only the last 365 days of activity count anyways. BUT, it would get rid of the "bad apple" reviews and possibly free up assignments. It doesn't benefit eden to have a review that is not useful at all. It also saves times since you won't find yourself reading any reviews of this type. I think it makes eden look better if an even larger majority of their reviews are useful. Seems win win win to me. But that makes me wonder...why don't we already do this?

What do you think? Is this fair? Thoughts?

Thing is you do have the option of writing to Gary or Laurel and asking if you can review the product and give them a reason why. I would think that a poorly written review with a poor rating would be a good reason to grant a request to review the product. Given the 30% buyout and such I can't see that one or even two poorly written reviews should stop other reviewers from adding in their 2 cents.
We don't remove "bad" topics from the forums I really don't think we should be removing reviews that we deem poorly written...there are a lot of reviews way back when that wouldn't get a favorable review now-a-days but are still good reviews.

I agree with deleting reviews that consistently receive "Not useful at all" (maybe over a period of 6-12 months) but believe more that an administrator should be the one to do it, rather than the system automatically deleting. It may well
...

I agree with deleting reviews that consistently receive "Not useful at all" (maybe over a period of 6-12 months) but believe more that an administrator should be the one to do it, rather than the system automatically deleting. It may well be that the reviewer has edited their review to be more comprehensive and useful, but still has those old Not Useful at All votes there.

Thing is you do have the option of writing to Gary or Laurel and asking if you can review the product and give them a reason why. I would think that a poorly written review with a poor rating would be a good reason to grant a request to review the
...

Thing is you do have the option of writing to Gary or Laurel and asking if you can review the product and give them a reason why. I would think that a poorly written review with a poor rating would be a good reason to grant a request to review the product. Given the 30% buyout and such I can't see that one or even two poorly written reviews should stop other reviewers from adding in their 2 cents.We don't remove "bad" topics from the forums I really don't think we should be removing reviews that we deem poorly written...there are a lot of reviews way back when that wouldn't get a favorable review now-a-days but are still good reviews.

I have not seen one yet that I would review unfortunately, but others could-you are right.

One thing I've noticed lately is that a lot of my reviews are getting "not useful at all" votes as well as "somewhat useful" and whatnot. I'm curious to know what the new people on the site are looking for in the reviews. I mean, last time I checked, I thought it was useful to write about product information, but I guess it's not to some people.

One thing I've noticed lately is that a lot of my reviews are getting "not useful at all" votes as well as "somewhat useful" and whatnot. I'm curious to know what the new people on the site are looking for in the reviews.
...

One thing I've noticed lately is that a lot of my reviews are getting "not useful at all" votes as well as "somewhat useful" and whatnot. I'm curious to know what the new people on the site are looking for in the reviews. I mean, last time I checked, I thought it was useful to write about product information, but I guess it's not to some people.

WHA?!?! Really? I got not usefuls when the rating was anonymous because of downvoters, but none in the recent past. Somewhats yea and those are expected every once and a while. But, I'm guessing that they don't know how to vote. For example, some reviewers though that the rate was based on if they would want the product. I had to explain to them that wasn't the case.

This is a perfect example of it still going on and skewing the true usefulness. I don't know which reviews those are but you write good reviews!

One thing I've noticed lately is that a lot of my reviews are getting "not useful at all" votes as well as "somewhat useful" and whatnot. I'm curious to know what the new people on the site are looking for in the reviews.
...

One thing I've noticed lately is that a lot of my reviews are getting "not useful at all" votes as well as "somewhat useful" and whatnot. I'm curious to know what the new people on the site are looking for in the reviews. I mean, last time I checked, I thought it was useful to write about product information, but I guess it's not to some people.

From what I just quickly looked at, one person in particular did retaliation votes on you. You voted them that way so they got butt hurt and did it to you. Shake it off girly! You rock.

Hmm... I voted that it was a good idea, but after reading all the comments down here (which I should have first done), I'm now not too sure. It seems like a good idea, but I see good and bad points to it, and as a few have mentioned, it may be
...

Hmm... I voted that it was a good idea, but after reading all the comments down here (which I should have first done), I'm now not too sure. It seems like a good idea, but I see good and bad points to it, and as a few have mentioned, it may be too difficult or cause people to get upset.

Hmmm... Good ideas though Lauren. I'm not usually able to come up with stuff like that.

I agree with deleting reviews that consistently receive "Not useful at all" (maybe over a period of 6-12 months) but believe more that an administrator should be the one to do it, rather than the system automatically deleting. It may well
...

I agree with deleting reviews that consistently receive "Not useful at all" (maybe over a period of 6-12 months) but believe more that an administrator should be the one to do it, rather than the system automatically deleting. It may well be that the reviewer has edited their review to be more comprehensive and useful, but still has those old Not Useful at All votes there.

I also think the idea of the administrator deciding what reviews would get deleted; however I doubt they want that much more work!

Also, I didn't think of the inclination to down vote out of spite myself until reading through this thread.

I can speak for myself in saying that I rate reviews based on the quality, not who writes them, but I can't speak for everyone else.